Why cables can be expensive

[ar-t]

digital cables are less diferintal in signal quality than analogue cables, most of the hype on digital cables are not ended at 75 ohm's but are rca 60 ohms at most, there fore it makes a bit of difference if not a lot from having bnc connectors that can end in 75 ohms and there for can deliver a more acurate digital signal with more bites, as for analogue conductors are more system dependant than digis,
nando.

60 ohms?????? Closer to 30-35 ohms, than 60 ohms. Not all cables are 75 ohms. (I know one manufacturer that swore his cable was 75 ohms, because some friends measured it for him. Too bad you could look up the p/n in the Andrews catalog, and see it was 50 ohms. A famous US manufacturer of years gone by used 93 ohms.)

Add to that, the gross impedance mismatches on 99.99% of the equipment sold, and it is easy to see how "mixing and matching" digital cables can make a larger difference than one would hope.

Why they cost so much is usually explained by:

1.) The manufacturers are greedy, and
2.) The consumers won't buy a cable that is inexpensive. (Don't tell me they will: I have lots of experience that says it is true. OK, most of that is because the dealers are in the middle, mucking things up.)

 

[ar-t]

Someone pointed out this post, made about 3 years ago, over on Audiogon.

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?fcabl&975720190&openflup&177&4#177

Not much has changed, except some of you people have talked us into making expensive cables. Again. (And given me headaches, dealing with a custom-made connector. Seemed it would be easier than modifying a stock one. What was I thinking?)

Still can't sell the $20 special! Although it would cost more than $20, as it did in '92. Probably $40. That's inflation, and the price of copper, 20 years later.

 

[RobHolt]

Someone pointed out this post, made about 3 years ago, over on Audiogon.

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?fcabl&975720190&openflup&177&4#177

Not much has changed, except some of you people have talked us into making expensive cables. Again. (And given me headaches, dealing with a custom-made connector. Seemed it would be easier than modifying a stock one. What was I thinking?)

Still can't sell the $20 special! Although it would cost more than $20, as it did in '92. Probably $40. That's inflation, and the price of copper, 20 years later.

Thanks for the link - very interesting and your views on the matter are refreshingly honest.

Interesting to read that you can obtain excellent 75 ohm cable and mod connectors to match, but that transports and dacs are often way off the correct spec.
Unless the home user is able to measure such things accurately (very unlikely) doesn't that make the whole transport/cable/dac matching issue incredibly random?

Have you ever tried performing null tests on the dac output using a selection of different digital cables?
That would be crucial to establishing the degree to which errors in the digital interface translate to errors on the output - the only thing that matters.

 

[ar-t]

Unless the home user is able to measure such things accurately (very unlikely) doesn't that make the whole transport/cable/dac matching issue incredibly random?

YES! That is why there is a good technical reason why cables sound different. Which leads to an endless amount of futzing.

Have you ever tried performing null tests on the dac output using a selection of different digital cables?
That would be crucial to establishing the degree to which errors in the digital interface translate to errors on the output - the only thing that matters.

No, what we do is a bit different. We look at the phase noise (jitter) on the recovered clock. If you have errors from mismatch problems, you really have problems. No, the differences are all caused by jitter.

The reason so many have trouble accepting jitter is partly the way it is "quantified". Unless you can state:

1.) Jitter amplitude,
2. ) frequency distribution,
3.) And whether it is Gaussian or data-correlated.

Without that information, it is just a number, which by itself, means very little.

On top of that, you don't "hear" jitter, in the same manner as harmonic or IM distortion. Instead, you "hear" jitter, by its absence.

Anyway, back to your question;

Yes, with different cables, you can see changes in the jitter on the recovered clock. A lot of times, a change is all you can detect. Jitter amplitude may go down, but the frequency spectrum may change. In which case, it is hard to say which is better. All you can say is that they are different.

 

[RobHolt]

Thanks for the reply.

I would argue that unless the problem transfers across to the analogue output it can be ignored and is of no importance. A null would show this. A flat line obtained form the test means there is absolutely nothing to worry about, anything else would need investigation.

 

[Richard Dunn]

Gobble-de-gook

You can measure and use null techniques however you like and it will tell you *nothing* unless we are talking gross LCR components as in those Litz or Goertz bonkers things.

Cable is interface so cannot be measured in isolation, plus there are many things happening we don't know how to measure let alone have a named parameter for. That is the beauty of hi-fi it is only a science in its foundation stages i.e. it works and it is safe - after that the design process is more an art form, more like musical instrument design, that is why we have so much crap around that specs out well but sounds like a 6 week old dead fish.

 

[RobHolt]

A null test isn't testing the cable in isolation - it is connected to the equipment and therefore part of the circuit.
I'd point out that we are specifically referring to digital cables in the above posts. Different loudspeaker cables will always produce some difference and never completely null. The question has to be are these tiny measured differences audible, and I argue they are not. You will introduce far, far greater audible difference by simply altering your listening position by a few inches than any cable will introduce. Literally just turning your head slightly produces several db of change at HF for example, so again tiny cable differences need to be seen in proper context.

I do not accept that there are things happening which cannot be measured when it comes to cables. We know all that we need and art has nothing to do with it.

You can argue that loudspeaker tuning is an art, or pick-up cartridge tuning for example and these things often have a clear sonic signature that reflects the preference of the designer. The same is not true of cable unless deliberate and quite gross electrical characteristics are built into the design, and those then react as part of the circuit.
Still remains a case of basic and understood manipulation - not art.

I do agree with you entirely when it comes to Litz and Goertz type cables.
Totally unfit for purpose and only suited for hanging out the washing IMO.

 

[Dev]

I do agree with you entirely when it comes to Litz and Goertz type cables.
Totally unfit for purpose and only suited for hanging out the washing IMO.

:cry:

 

[RobHolt]

Sorry Dev

Probably not such as issue with your valve amp though.

 

[Richard Dunn]

A null test isn't testing the cable in isolation - it is connected to the equipment and therefore part of the circuit.
I'd point out that we are specifically referring to digital cables in the above posts. Different loudspeaker cables will always produce some difference and never completely null. The question has to be are these tiny measured differences audible, and I argue they are not. You will introduce far, far greater audible difference by simply altering your listening position by a few inches than any cable will introduce. Literally just turning your head slightly produces several db of change at HF for example, so again tiny cable differences need to be seen in proper context.

I do not accept that there are things happening which cannot be measured when it comes to cables. We know all that we need and art has nothing to do with it.

You can argue that loudspeaker tuning is an art, or pick-up cartridge tuning for example and these things often have a clear sonic signature that reflects the preference of the designer. The same is not true of cable unless deliberate and quite gross electrical characteristics are built into the design, and those then react as part of the circuit.
Still remains a case of basic and understood manipulation - not art.

I do agree with you entirely when it comes to Litz and Goertz type cables.
Totally unfit for purpose and only suited for hanging out the washing IMO.

Spoken by someone who doesn't produce cables, and this is the problem with forums, experts with no experience of producing products snear and diss people who do. Do you really think any hi-fi manufacturer manufactures his own cables - don't be daft, they don't have the machinery nor the ability to do it, not Nordost, not Naim not anyone. Cable sellers, as we should be called, select from available raw cable to either re-sleeve or terminate and package. So where is the science in that, especially as the written specs from the cable manufacturer are normally pure trollop, even when they are building to a US army RG spec.

So how do we do it - well surprise surprise - we use our ears. So it is an art form not a science, and if you select cable purely from specs you are just playing a game of chance, nothing more. I have been selecting, selling and listening to cables for over 30 years now and I think I have enough experience and nounce to pronounce some form of reality, even though most of you lot seem to want to rely on some delusional magic specs that make some people think they know something just because they can switch on and use an oscilloscope etc.

 

[RobHolt]

Spoken by someone who doesn't produce cables, and this is the problem with forums, experts with no experience of producing products snear and diss people who do. Do you really think any hi-fi manufacturer manufactures his own cables - don't be daft, they don't have the machinery nor the ability to do it, not Nordost, not Naim not anyone. Cable sellers, as we should be called, select from available raw cable to either re-sleeve or terminate and package. So where is the science in that, especially as the written specs from the cable manufacturer are normally pure trollop, even when they are building to a US army RG spec.

So how do we do it - well surprise surprise - we use our ears. So it is an art form not a science, and if you select cable purely from specs you are just playing a game of chance, nothing more. I have been selecting, selling and listening to cables for over 30 years now and I think I have enough experience and nounce to pronounce some form of reality, even though most of you lot seem to want to rely on some delusional magic specs that make some people think they know something just because they can switch on and use an oscilloscope etc.

None of that is really relevant or answers the basic question.

I've built more cables and bought more cables over the years than I care to remember.
I agree entirely with you about using ears and listening, which is why when you rely on ears alone you find that people cannot tell cables apart. Nothing to do with duff systems, dirty windows or deafness - simply a case of nothing to hear.

The fact that you've been producing cables for so long and have continually baulked at all attempts to introduce controls to test the reliability of both yourself and listeners only serves to magnify and reinforce the delusion.

I once sat firmly in your camp and have the boxes of home made experimental and purchased cables to prove it. I once thought many of these sounded different and certainly wouldn't have spend days on end twisting and sheathing wires if I thought a £5 Maplin cable was just as good. But you see - no proper controls, no objective testing of the results. Introduce the latter and the results change completely.


The short version for those bored with this is that I'm deaf and Richard is deluded.

 

[Richard Dunn]

None of that is really relevant or answers the basic question.

I've built more cables and bought more cables over the years than I care to remember.
I agree entirely with you about using ears and listening, which is why when you rely on ears alone you find that people cannot tell cables apart. Nothing to do with duff systems, dirty windows or deafness - simply a case of nothing to hear.

The fact that you've been producing cables for so long and have continually baulked at all attempts to introduce controls to test the reliability of both yourself and listeners only serves to magnify and reinforce the delusion.

I once sat firmly in your camp and have the boxes of home made experimental and purchased cables to prove it. I once thought many of these sounded different and certainly wouldn't have spend days on end twisting and sheathing wires if I thought a £5 Maplin cable was just as good. But you see - no proper controls, no objective testing of the results. Introduce the latter and the results change completely.


The short version for those bored with this is that I'm deaf and Richard is deluded.

Those that are bored with this are bored with the hobby of hi-fi and the pursuit of good music. All they wish to do is spout gobble-de-gook meaningless numbers they bare no relationship with *heard* reality. The pleasure of the enthusiast is in the pursuit of excellence, when that pursuit becomes the pursuit of numbers then we lose the hobby. This has been shown in past episodes of this argument that have been going on and on repeating themself for at least 40 years in my experience. And from talking to people who were involved in the hobby in the 50's there was a hard core of subjectists even then. Most came out of the Radio ham thing and building things from the Gov surplus shops that all the early hi-fi shops developed out of.

Just because you have lost it and lost the pursuit or *heard* excellence doesn't mean the rest of us should give up. Music is an art and always will be, and the reproduction of that art in maintaining the *differences* and qualities of reproduced music is the essence. Bland number crunching is the death of that art, and in fact has less reality involved than subjective individual choice, and yet the opposite is always quoted by the likes of yourself. I do understand that you wish to take this forum on your path. Why, I do not understand, what is the point. It is always quoted that the subjectivist cannot prove what he hears, so what! why does he need to, all he needs to do is enjoy *his* music, and if he finds a cable, digital or otherwise that makes his enjoyment more enjoyable then who are you to say he is deluded. The delusion comes because the objectivist cannot correlate his obscure numbers to any form of musical reality so therefore has to resort to insult and dismissive attitude, the put down, and the superior persona that comes from knowing how to use bit of test equipment with prods on that normal mortals don't, so they can look and talk down to them.

Now I am afraid with me you have subjectivist who also know how to use the tin boxes with prods on them, knows what they are good for and what they are bloody useless for, and in terms of the pursuit of *musical* excellence they are bloody useless. There is only your music played through your system in your room into your ears that has any baring on that.

 

[RobHolt]

Those that are bored with this are bored with the hobby of hi-fi and the pursuit of good music. All they wish to do is spout gobble-de-gook meaningless numbers they bare no relationship with *heard* reality.

.......

Just because you have lost it and lost the pursuit or *heard* excellence doesn't mean the rest of us should give up. Music is an art and always will be, and the reproduction of that art in maintaining the *differences* and qualities of reproduced music is the essence.

A lot of assumptions.
I can only speak for myself but I fail to see how sitting people in front of a system and saying 'you know that cable that you could clearly identify a moment ago........ well now do it blind' has anything to do with meaningless numbers. It is pure reliance on the ears. I've never asked anyone to pick a cable by showing them a scope and don't know of anyone else doing this - it is a strawman argument.

Lastly, yes music is art.
Audio wire isn't art - no artistry other than perhaps the aesthetics of the sheath and connections is involved.
It needs only to perform both a basic and more importantly a well understood job.

 

[Richard Dunn]

A lot of assumptions.
I can only speak for myself but I fail to see how sitting people in front of a system and saying 'you know that cable that you could clearly identify a moment ago........ well now do it blind' has anything to do with meaningless numbers. It is pure reliance on the ears. I've never asked anyone to pick a cable by showing them a scope and don't know of anyone else doing this - it is a strawman argument.

Lastly, yes music is art.
Audio wire isn't art - no artistry other than perhaps the aesthetics of the sheath and connections is involved.
It needs only to perform both a basic and more importantly a well understood job.

The selection process is the art. So how do you select cable, by placing it within a known loop that has nothing to do with what it connects to in reality. Putting a signal through it that has nothing to do with the signal it has to handle in reality and looking for a difference that is shown as numbers, what a complete waste of time.

And once again the blind (and I am sure we will move on to double blind) nonsense raises its head. I spent 20 years participating in blind tests, about 10 of them on Hi-Fi Choice panels and I could hear differences because I got used to the process, which is why they used me. I could hear anything I designed (or selected) from the first few notes, including cables. But the process is at fault and the *emotional* system within the body and the nervous system is what is stimulated by music and it is shut dowm or partially shut down by stress, especially for people not used to the process, and that is what is created by the very people using the process to prove a point.

 

[Mescalito]

The selection process is the art. So how do you select cable, by placing it within a known loop that has nothing to do with what it connects to in reality. Putting a signal through it that has nothing to do with the signal it has to handle in reality and looking for a difference that is shown as numbers, what a complete waste of time.

And once again the blind (and I am sure we will move on to double blind) nonsense raises its head. I spent 20 years participating in blind tests, about 10 of them on Hi-Fi Choice panels and I could hear differences because I got used to the process, which is why they used me. I could hear anything I designed (or selected) from the first few notes, including cables. But the process is at fault and the *emotional* system within the body and the nervous system is what is stimulated by music and it is shut dowm or partially shut down by stress, especially for people not used to the process, and that is what is created by the very people using the process to prove a point.

Richard,

That last sentence is self-serving psychobabble nonsense. You are simply perpetuating everything tjhat is wrong with this hobby and what is alienating it from a vast number of potential devotees.

You skip from forum to forum doing this, and get yourself all aeriated when challenged.

Hi-fi is not witchcraft. It is not even science anymore. It is well proven & well documented technology.

Chris

I can understand why,

 

[jazid]

Hi All,
jumping in at the wrong end is it not reasonable that Richard feels blind testing is a potentially stressful experience (not unlike exams). When it comes to subjective appreciation of what is,at most, rather subtle differences, then any stress may interfere with a listeners focus and appreciation?

Also aren't there two separate threads going on:
Those who hear a difference:
Impedance mismatches are apparently rife and little addressed by the majority of us. Cable characteristics could enhance or reduce such mismatches and this may be more obvious where the mismatch is approaching a critical level and components are starting to react badly to each other, where the cable impedance/capacitance/reactance might either precipitate or ameliorate such negative interaction.
Those who don't:
Where there is proper component matching the cable may not interfere, or it may be too subtle for us to hear or otherwise measure. In such a situation a blind test producing a negative only means that in this particular setup there is no audible interaction. One would have to repeat this test many times across many different components to produce a meaningful result concerning the cable rather than the system under test. This becomes a meaningless exercise since the chance of anyone having the same system as those under test is fairly limited.

I suspect we have all been in situations where a cable swap has been quite audible, and have swapped them around several times to be certain. We have all been in situatons where it makes no difference at all, sadly sometimes on the end of an expensive purchase..I suppose my point is that these are not mutually incompatible positions. While I'm getting my tuppence-worth I reckon there is art and science aplenty in this profession/hobby, and will continue to be at least until we can no longer hear the difference between recorded and live sound. That is the ambition - to make the transduction chain inaudible. We have years more of this ahead of us!

 

[Richard Dunn]

And the usual parties join in the "discussion" (apart from Jazid). The insults start exactly as I said - look at who starts the ad hominem. We are getting the witchcraft thing, soon it will be fairy dust, and then the Randy challenge.

It is all so predictable, the argument and logic involved cannot be countered so it is the poster who is attacked. It has become a tradition in the past on this forum (and on some others), so I suppose it is too much to hope that it has changed.

 

[Dev]

I've removed the post you reported RD.

 

[Mescalito]

And the usual parties join in the "discussion" (apart from Jazid). The insults start exactly as I said - look at who starts the ad hominem. We are getting the witchcraft thing, soon it will be fairy dust, and then the Randy challenge.

It is all so predictable, the argument and logic involved cannot be countered so it is the poster who is attacked. It has become a tradition in the past on this forum (and on some others), so I suppose it is too much to hope that it has changed.

Argument & logic, Richard, don't use words you don't understand. You state a string of opinions as "fact", & then get upset when someone fails to go along with your spiel.

If what you say are facts, prove them. Show the research, the measurements.

After all, something physical must be causing these "improvements". If it isn't, then you should not be suprised when words like "witchcraft", "fairy dust" start to appear.

Chris

 

[Richard Dunn]

Argument & logic, Richard, don't use words you don't understand. You state a string of opinions as "fact", & then get upset when someone fails to go along with your spiel.

If what you say are facts, prove them. Show the research, the measurements.

After all, something physical must be causing these "improvements". If it isn't, then you should not be suprised when words like "witchcraft", "fairy dust" start to appear.

Chris

OK so go to a concert and then give me a technical resume of why you did or didn't enjoy the performance, show me your research including measurements and a written specification and comparisons with other concerts and performances. You can also have a lot of fun trying to get your test equipment into the concert hall, but hey! what ever turns you on.

I don't have to prove anything as I have nothing to prove. I have *opinion and the ability to make choice* no more no less relevent than other opinions, which comes from personal choice, which comes from my pleasure. What is different is that I have had over 40 years experience of enjoying it, where as you are stuck up some sort of strange intellectual masturbation cul-de-sac.